Silicone breast implants were re-approved in the United States in November 2006 after having been withdrawn from the market. Implant recipients cite safety, scarring, and “natural” look and feel to be the top three indicators in selecting between saline- and silicone-filled implants for breast augmentation. Given that the more natural look and feel offered by silicon is a pre-requisite for many patients, silicone implants have already achieved nearly 50% market share following their return to the market.
But because silicone implants are pre-filled (to alleviate leakage concerns) they have generally required larger access incisions than saline implants. Due to the possibility of visible scars associated with the larger incisions, some patients have remained apprehensive about selecting silicone implants.
An additional consideration that has thus-far weighed against silicone implant selection involves the amount of time required for insertion. Hand manipulation can be time consuming even a highly skilled surgical practitioner. The time spent has a direct bearing on the expense of the procedure.
The extent (and nature) of such manipulation also impacts the safety of the procedure. Stated plainly, the poking and pushing required to manually insert a prefilled silicone implant can be quite rough. Indeed, clinical studies have shown that the majority of silicone implant leaks/ruptures are attributable to sharp instrument damage and/or local stress forces exerted on the implant at the time of insertion.
Advances have been made in the construction methods and materials used in silicone breast implants over the last decade (e.g., the introduction of cohesive gels, textured shells, and anatomical shapes). However, little improvement has been made in the method of inserting the implants. That is, until use of the device described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/228,072 to Keller.
The Keller filing describes a device and methods addressing each of the above-referenced issues. It discloses a specially-adapted pastry bag type device for implant introduction. The device enables silicon implant insertion though smaller incisions at dramatically reduced introduction time as compared to the common practice for silicon implant introduction. Likewise, the potential for implant damage has been significantly reduced. By addressing the cited delivery challenges through use of the Keller device, the popularity of silicon-based implants is poised to overtake that of saline-filled counterparts. This scenario is made more likely given ultimate market introduction of the Keller device with improvements as described herein.